Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 8, Cal 6, Us 6, Metcalf 6, Harper 5, California 3, Helen Diller 3, Etc. 2, Transbay 2, Kim 2, Lloyd 2, Carmen Chu 1, Adina Leven 1, Galati 1, Scott Weiner 1, Tida 1, Gpa 1, Lowe 1, Efr Llc 1, Fta 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 27, 2012
    12:00 - 12:30pm PST  

12:00pm
and that is what we are doing. >> which of the various things that you proposed that could be part of the scope, which are the ones that the fra requires the gpa to do. >> the increasing of the radii at the structure and the lengthening of the platforms. >> yes, and the fta, who in fact, funded this required us to put the vent structures in because of the programs that they have had on other projects. >> and >> yeah. i would very much endorse what the director said. we are not ruling out what might happen separately to the downtown extension. what the discussions that i have had with the city have not been to realign downtown extension, it is what to do with the yard and four and this what for do with the approaching for the south, which was never thought of dtx
12:01pm
or any extension. we were extending from the existing station, to downtown. >> right. >> and that really does not take on the responsibility for the south. >> right. >> and we would put them as partners. >> thank you. >> director lloyd wanted to comment as well. >> thank you. >> just a comment that we at cal train are moving forward with the electricitifiation and so we are moving forward and we are going to move forward regardless on what happens on the high speed rail. we are working with them to possibly not do additional track work other than separations other than grade separations which i believe in holely as one of the big things to get down. but that is our procedure. we are moving forward and we will cooperate completely with
12:02pm
your staff. and also installing the old coast daylight and i am on the board that and and that is moving forward and we will be getting close to getting that done. so that we will have a direct train service from san francisco and los angeles. >> and i can accommodate the director, we work to make sure that that happens. >> there are any other questions or questions specifically to this item? >> director metcalf. >> in the long run i do not think that it is clear if the fourth and king cal train station will remain a station or if there will be other alignments that we all end up believing would be preferred. i think that we need to be undertaking a process, with all
12:03pm
of the partners. that will be necessary to pay for and get this project completed. and try to see if we can come up with an alignment and a design that everybody can agree to. i have concerns about spending money on ir that has a likelihood of having to be redone. i know in the scope of the project, a million dollars may not be that much. but there is... i wonder about the wisdom of proceeding. >> four and this king will be... will stay as a station. however, maybe not all trains will stop there. because, and that whole mission bay area is very important to the cal train right now and as far as the yard, only looking at it as someone who has been in the business all of his life. we will have to have some storage. because you are not going to have storage done on the transbay terminal. >> the trains during the rush
12:04pm
hour, especially may have to dead head back and be stored at fourth and king. i don't know the answer, i will find out. >> and director, we have to as a condition, of the 400 million dollars that fra gave us do this supplemental work. >> correct. >> we have to do it otherwise you are saying fra take the $400 million back. >> and that is part of our... i agree. >> so, what i am hearing though, is that this is something that we do have to move forward with, regardless. but we do want to have a larger conversation, because we do know regionally that there are conversations about dtx and cal train and what that also mean for the fourth and king rail yard as well as the 280 and a number of other kind of larger more complex issues around kind of the full, kind of development. and director metcalf i am hearing that you are concerned that maybe some of the scope of that work should be included in this extension as well.
12:05pm
>> i think that it would have been potentially more efficient for us to do it that way. if i may just make a concluding comment >> sure. >> i will vote for this with the strong expression that i would like us to begin a multistake holder process to try to resolve the questions about phase two, in a way that all of the major funding parties, can be on the same page. >> and so, maybe potentially, in december, january and we can agendaize something on the calendar to have a broader discussion and i think that outside meetings will need to take place in between them. >> yeah, it is my understanding the mayor's office is julianne is leading that effort already. >> yeah, she is. >> okay. >> i move authorization. >> we do have a motion. we have a motion and a second. but we have public comment on this item. >> we have a member of the
12:06pm
public adina leven who would like to provide comments to you on this item. >> good morning, directors i am with friends of cal train and so, we are a community advocacy group with a goal to have stable funding and successful modernation of cal train and we were very glad to cecal train moderization be funded via the high speed rail project. we are looking to see the trains arrive to transbay, as soon as possible. and we are happy to see the blended system move forward as something that has the best balance of costs appropriate, capacity, and meeting the needs of the corridor. so, that said, in terms of the environmental work going forward one of the things that
12:07pm
observers have noticed, is that the old plan for transbay, there are some significant miss matches between that plan and the actual capacity of the blended system and also, the value to san francisco and to riders and cal train. so for example, the approximately half of the trains according to the old plan would turn around at fourth and king. and in terms of rider ship and capacities and the needs of san francisco the revenue for cal train having as many trains as possible go into san francisco would be the ideal thing to have happen. and there are also are questions also regarding the alignment and whether the current alignment is actually the most cost effective and the layout of the stations is there
12:08pm
any room for improvement in terms of number of riders and the effectiveness of that line in the long term. so i am very glad to hear director metcalf raise these issues and you know we certainly, strongly encourage in either this project segment or subsequent project segments to address the miss match between the current older plan and the needs of the blended system and the long term ridership and revenue goals of cal train and the city of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, very much. >> is there any other public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> all right. seeing none. we do have a motion and a second. >> can we take a roll call on this item. >> director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd? >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. >> that is four ayes and item nine is approved.
12:09pm
>> thank you. and we will look off the schedule for a broader discussion on dts and cal train at future board meetings in the next couple of months. item number ten. >> approving the arise participation level of 8.3 percent for years, 2010 to 11 to 12 to 13. and we did get in the informational presentation at our board meeting, i believe in september or october. so, if you could just give an update since then. >> right >> and the director sarah galatty will report on this. >> i thought that i would give a little bit of background since director was not here in september. i have to leave in two minutes any way. >> well the brief update is that we did put the revised goal of 8.5 percent out for public comment. we also had a small and disadvantaged business roundtable at our offices and got a lot of good suggestions but no comments that would lead
12:10pm
us to revise the goal so we are recommending approval of 8.5 percent for the remainder of the fiscal years. >> i am curious about the feedback that we got that was helpful, i think that this is a goal that all of the directors share in terms of increasing minority in small business participation. >> yeah, the roundtable that we have, we have represented from asian american architects and hispanic chamber of commerce, california small business association, etc., etc., several woman's groups as well. most of the feedback had to do with out reach, we are to really get word out about contract opportunities that these small businesses are looking at. and places like bidsink making sure that our website is easy to navigate and that we are sending out notices which we do. they also had some feedback on matching up the goal setting process that you go through, a
12:11pm
process of matching the industrial classification codes and looking at the dbes available in those areas and they have suggestions on which codes to use that would capture the smaller businesses than just the big urses and etc.. >> i appreciate that. what the out reach has done. >> thank you. >> is there any other discussion or questions? >> seeing none, any public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> do we have a motion for this item? >> so moved. >> we have a motion and a second? >> second. >> and roll call. >> thank you, with that director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> chair kim. >> aye. >> that is four aye and item ten is approved. >> item number eleven. >> approval of the minutes of the october 11th 2012 meeting. >> i know that director harper will abstain from this vote.
12:12pm
can we take a roll call on the minutes for october the eleventh, 2012 >> yes, members of the public anything that they wanted to address you? >> director harper? >> do we have a motion to move this forward. >> moved, second. >> my apologies. >> with that, director harper, abstaining lloyd. >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> kim. >> that is three, ayes and item eleven is approved. >> item number 12. >> is the areview of on 007, for california code. >> and galati will crpt on this item. >> directors this is required by the california government code as well as the investment policy be reviewed annually even if we are not proposing any changes. we are not proposing any changes at this time. objectivities of our investment policy remain the same, safety, liquidity and return on investment has a much lower
12:13pm
priority. we currently keep most of our cash in a u.s. bank checking akoupt. we obviously do not keep a high cash balance it goes in from the funders and goes out to the contractors. and we do have a trustee account with deucshbank. most of which will be in trescy notes that will come to end of the year. and we will look at investment options at that time. but looking at the economic out look and what we think that interest rates may do in the future as well as cash flow needs we probably will choose investments with short maturities so we can month forward. i am happy to answer any questions. >> any questions? >> seeing none, thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> none that i am aware of. >> okay. >> do you have a motion on item number 12. >> it is informational. >> i am sorry. >> at this time, we are done
12:14pm
with our special calendars. so i will take a motion to convene and to closed session, is there a motion to do that. >> so moved. second. >> so we will at this time. convene into closed session. so we do ask the members of the public to please exit the room. >> and no members of the public did indicate that they did want to address you on the item. >> my apologies about that. >> if there are any members of the public that want to address the board of directors on this >> back in session, and council will report on the closed session. >> this is a report on the action taken in closed session with item 13. >> the tba board of adirectors approved by a vote of 5-0 a purchase and sale agrees to sale 101 first street to the
12:15pm
to*efr llc, for $188 million plus escalation, for all cash to close on or before april one, 2013. and approved to related agreement regarding the operations of the transbay tower project. >> thank you. >> are there any other items or announcements? >> that concludes your agenda for today. >> seeing none, meeting ais journed. >> thank you. tga approved
12:16pm
>> good morning. and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority finance committee. i am scott weiner, the chair of the committee, to my far right is commissioner elsbernd, and to my left. and to my left is commissioner carmen chu and i want to thank from sfg tv lowe, and karm anac for the video services today. matter clerk are there any announcements? >> no announcements. >> item two? >> approve the minutes of the october 16, 2012, it is an action item >> is there any public comment
12:17pm
on item two? >> seeing none, it is closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> could we take that without objection, that will be the order. item three? >> item three, recommend exercising the first one-year option of the legal services contract with nossaman llp and increasing the contract amount by $350,000, to a total amount not to exceed $1,310,000, for general legal consel services and authorizing the executive director to modify contract terms and conditions. >> this is an action item. >> good morning, commissioners, fong director for finance and administration. the authority contacts the legal services with the city attorney for the general contract related items. we also have nixon peabody and squire. and nossman helping us. back in march of 2010, the board approved the three-year
12:18pm
agreement with two-year options. we are currently in the third year, and the agreement will be expiring on june 30, 2013. back in december, 2011, you may remember, i brought before this committee, an amendment to that contract, to increase the contract by $300,000 to increase the contract to offset the cost spent and legal lawsuit related to the city of the presidio parkway project. >> in february of 2012, you may recall that i brought before the board an item to replace the $200 million dollar line of credit. athat time we were working with abdw and the rates were extremely high and we went out and came back with a new where it was yielding us a savings of $3.3 million over the court of
12:19pm
three years. with that, we also encured $100,000 in services related to the commercial paper and this is the reason that i am bringing the item, a few months earlier than the contract expiration date. within, the services that nossman performs in addition to just the routine, and legal services related to the operations of authority, they assist us in for the legal services for parkway, island and brt and the formation of the treasure island mobility agency. it has a 7 percent dbe and lbe participation. and this item was brought before the cec on october 24 and there was a unanimous support. in terms of fiscal impacts, part of the costs for the contract that is funded by mlas
12:20pm
with other city departments such as tida and tima for bueda island. we expect to receive more mous and will be using the prop a funds to offset the costs. in terms of me budget amendments we have the next budget to cover the majority of the contract and we will be bringing before the committee of an amendment of $177,000 over the course of the next month, at the mid year point. with that i am looking for a recommendation to exercise the first, one-year option for legal services with nossman llp and increase the contract amount by $350,000, for a total amount not-to-exceed $1.3 million for general legal counsel services and i am available to answer any questions that you may have. >> commissioners, david chiu
12:21pm
has joined us. >> could you give us a little bit more information about what exactly the extent to the terms and the conditions can be modified by the director. >> they would stay the same, but we would be modifying any conditions or terms that have changed over the course of the time, meaning through the government code, maybe through any city ordinances, and we would might be looking at changing the contract drastically, we are changing the contract not approved by the board and the term of the services. >> i totally appreciate that, we may need to change the contract terms if we change the rules here is that del ineatd. >> it would mention that the executive director could modify any contract terms and conditions. >> my point is could we limit
12:22pm
the resolution language that it is clear that it is based on changes that we make from the administrative code angle or other changes as opposed to blanket changes. >> good morning, commissioners, this is the standard language. what i am not allowed to change are the dollars and cents aspects of the contract. but, this is actually they are simply to say that the need for a board's action on something like a change in personnel, to the company or things like that, that may be specified in the contract. and may need to be changed but does not necessarily change the contract. but it isn't just to reflect city, or other guidelines that may be changing on the board. it is also to deal with the sort of the basics of keeping
12:23pm
that contract active. and we can clarify that some more, even in the resolution that goes to the board. >> all right. >> it is not a blanket authority, especially not on the financial side of this. >> and i trust that you and the staff are making decisions that are in the best interests of what we are trying to achieve. it would be good to clarify the circumstances in which the changes can be had and if, again, i think that what you delineated, personnel changes and changes that governor you and administrative changes and those make sense and would be helpful. >> great. >> comments or questions, and we will open up for public comment and who would like to comment on item three? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> let's move forward with the full authority with recommendation? that will be the order. >> item four.
12:24pm
>> item four. internal accounting report for the trhee months ending september 30, 2012. this is an information item. >> respond. >> commissioners, what you have before you is the first quarterly fiscal year 2013, internal accounting report. this is your birds' eye view of what the financial position is of the authority eit has aamounted for $165 million and liabilities up to $223.5 million. and this includes $150 outstanding commercial paper. total revenues have added up to 19.8 million, and total expenditures are at 3.7 million. and in terms of total cash for the first quarter, we have approximately $104.6 million in cash. this is approximately 91 percent of it is approximately sitting in the commercial,
12:25pm
sitting in the city's treasury pool. and the investments that we hold are in compliance with the government code and the authority board approved investment policy and the amount that we have in the bank provides sufficient liquidty to meet the requirements over the next six months. with that i am more than happy to answer any questions related to the internal report >> any questions or comments? >> seeing none, is there any member of the public that wishes to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> this is an information item and so we do not need to take any action. >> thank you. >> item number five. >> introduction of new items, this is an information item. >> are there any introductions? >> seeing none, is there any member of the public who wish to comment on item five. seeing none, public comment is six. >> item six. >> public comment. >> is there any member of the public that wishes to comment on any item in the jurisdiction
12:26pm
of this committee? seeing none, item 7, public comment is closed. >> item seven. >> adjournment. >> we are adjourned. >> >> there are kids and families ever were. it is really an extraordinary playground. it has got a little something
12:27pm
for everyone. it is aesthetically billion. it is completely accessible. you can see how excited people are for this playground. it is very special. >> on opening day in the brand- new helen diller playground at north park, children can be seen swinging, gliding, swinging, exploring, digging, hanging, jumping, and even making drumming sounds. this major renovation was possible with the generous donation of more than $1.5 million from the mercer fund in honor of san francisco bay area philanthropist helen diller. together with the clean and safe neighborhood parks fund and the city's general fund. >> 4. 3. 2. 1. [applause] >> the playground is broken into three general areas. one for the preschool set, another for older children, and
12:28pm
a sand area designed for kids of all ages. unlike the old playground, the new one is accessible to people with disabilities. this brand-new playground has several unique and exciting features. two slides, including one 45- foot super slide with an elevation change of nearly 30 feet. climbing ropes and walls, including one made of granite. 88 suspension bridge. recycling, traditional swing, plus a therapeutics win for children with disabilities, and even a sand garden with chines and drums. >> it is a visionary $3.5 million world class playground in the heart of san francisco. this is just really a big, community win and a celebration for us all. >> to learn more about the helen diller playground in dolores park, go to sfrecpark.org.
12:29pm